You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

Would it still be collusion since the punishment was handed out after? They allowed them to do it but said under new contract they will be punished.

It was still collusion. But the only way to get the punishment on the new contract was to get the NFLPA to sign off on it. Had the NFLPA not agree to sign off on the punishment, the Cowboys and Redskins would not have lost cap space and the suit that we're talking about that the NFLPA has brought would most probably be successful.

But since in the pursuit of getting the short term cap increase, the NFLPA signed away all rights to sue for any illegal activities by the owners, this lawsuit is going nowhere.

But who are they trying to defraud? Wouldn't collusion come down to which if the warning takes president over the agreement to the contracts.

Were the players in the room when the owners agreed to this "unwritten rule"? If not then the players were defrauded. In this NFL, since there is collective bargaining and there is a union, the owners cannot agree to have rules about cap/contracts/etc... without the players signing off first.

How does it effect players though. They didn't get punished.

If the owners colluded to not spend over a certain amount that effectively meant that players negotiating contracts / free agents could have possibly gotten more money. So it absolutely impacts them.

This lawsuit isn't about any of the teams Punished, but entirely about the NFLPA gearing up ammo for 2020 and the next collective bargaining deal._________________

In Redball I Trust!The price of progress is trusting the process.
Heart. Leadership. Passion. Will.

Would it still be collusion since the punishment was handed out after? They allowed them to do it but said under new contract they will be punished.

It was still collusion. But the only way to get the punishment on the new contract was to get the NFLPA to sign off on it. Had the NFLPA not agree to sign off on the punishment, the Cowboys and Redskins would not have lost cap space and the suit that we're talking about that the NFLPA has brought would most probably be successful.

But since in the pursuit of getting the short term cap increase, the NFLPA signed away all rights to sue for any illegal activities by the owners, this lawsuit is going nowhere.

But who are they trying to defraud? Wouldn't collusion come down to which if the warning takes president over the agreement to the contracts.

Were the players in the room when the owners agreed to this "unwritten rule"? If not then the players were defrauded. In this NFL, since there is collective bargaining and there is a union, the owners cannot agree to have rules about cap/contracts/etc... without the players signing off first.

How does it effect players though. They didn't get punished.

If the owners colluded to not spend over a certain amount that effectively meant that players negotiating contracts / free agents could have possibly gotten more money. So it absolutely impacts them.

This lawsuit isn't about any of the teams Punished, but entirely about the NFLPA gearing up ammo for 2020 and the next collective bargaining deal.

Here's the thing, the punishment dealt solely with moving money from other seasons, not spending some huge amount of cash on mega one year deals within the uncapped year.

Would it still be collusion since the punishment was handed out after? They allowed them to do it but said under new contract they will be punished.

It was still collusion. But the only way to get the punishment on the new contract was to get the NFLPA to sign off on it. Had the NFLPA not agree to sign off on the punishment, the Cowboys and Redskins would not have lost cap space and the suit that we're talking about that the NFLPA has brought would most probably be successful.

But since in the pursuit of getting the short term cap increase, the NFLPA signed away all rights to sue for any illegal activities by the owners, this lawsuit is going nowhere.

But who are they trying to defraud? Wouldn't collusion come down to which if the warning takes president over the agreement to the contracts.

Were the players in the room when the owners agreed to this "unwritten rule"? If not then the players were defrauded. In this NFL, since there is collective bargaining and there is a union, the owners cannot agree to have rules about cap/contracts/etc... without the players signing off first.

How does it effect players though. They didn't get punished.

If the owners colluded to not spend over a certain amount that effectively meant that players negotiating contracts / free agents could have possibly gotten more money. So it absolutely impacts them.

This lawsuit isn't about any of the teams Punished, but entirely about the NFLPA gearing up ammo for 2020 and the next collective bargaining deal.

Here's the thing, the punishment dealt solely with moving money from other seasons, not spending some huge amount of cash on mega one year deals within the uncapped year.

That's what I was thinking. It wasn't about giving big contracts but moving ones just to take advantage of it. They would have to prove the nfl prevented teams from spending money that year._________________

vikingsvikings wrote:

I don't understand most of that, but I can tell it's probably inaccurate.

Its not like the Redskins and Cowboys can get that money back on their salary cap

Why can't the Jerry and Dan sue the league for getting screwed over illegally and get back the salary cap space they lost?

they can i guess, but if they do they will only get the space back for whatever time they lost it(1 year right?) so then they have to get their cap situation back in line to the 125M or whatever it is. Not like they can really use it unless they front-load a ton of contracts. Like when we didnt have a salary cap and some teams didnt do anything because they knew they would have to be within the 120 when the cap came back_________________

Its not like the Redskins and Cowboys can get that money back on their salary cap

Why can't the Jerry and Dan sue the league for getting screwed over illegally and get back the salary cap space they lost?

Because the Redskins and Cowboys are actually defendants in this case. Even though jones and Snyder were punished, they are NFL owners and are against the NFLPA in this one. They could sue, but that would expose the owners vs the NFLPA, thus affecting themselves anyway. That's why they backed off and didn't make a big deal about it. Have to admit it was a brilliant plan by Mara and company._________________

Its not like the Redskins and Cowboys can get that money back on their salary cap

Why can't the Jerry and Dan sue the league for getting screwed over illegally and get back the salary cap space they lost?

Because the Redskins and Cowboys are actually defendants in this case. Even though jones and Snyder were punished, they are NFL owners and are against the NFLPA in this one. They could sue, but that would expose the owners vs the NFLPA, thus affecting themselves anyway. That's why they backed off and didn't make a big deal about it. Have to admit it was a brilliant plan by Mara and company.

What did they do against the teams though._________________

vikingsvikings wrote:

I don't understand most of that, but I can tell it's probably inaccurate.

Would it still be collusion since the punishment was handed out after? They allowed them to do it but said under new contract they will be punished.

It was still collusion. But the only way to get the punishment on the new contract was to get the NFLPA to sign off on it. Had the NFLPA not agree to sign off on the punishment, the Cowboys and Redskins would not have lost cap space and the suit that we're talking about that the NFLPA has brought would most probably be successful.

But since in the pursuit of getting the short term cap increase, the NFLPA signed away all rights to sue for any illegal activities by the owners, this lawsuit is going nowhere.

But who are they trying to defraud? Wouldn't collusion come down to which if the warning takes president over the agreement to the contracts.

Were the players in the room when the owners agreed to this "unwritten rule"? If not then the players were defrauded. In this NFL, since there is collective bargaining and there is a union, the owners cannot agree to have rules about cap/contracts/etc... without the players signing off first.

How does it effect players though. They didn't get punished.

If the owners colluded to not spend over a certain amount that effectively meant that players negotiating contracts / free agents could have possibly gotten more money. So it absolutely impacts them.

This lawsuit isn't about any of the teams Punished, but entirely about the NFLPA gearing up ammo for 2020 and the next collective bargaining deal.

Here's the thing, the punishment dealt solely with moving money from other seasons, not spending some huge amount of cash on mega one year deals within the uncapped year.

This is done all the time. In fact, the contract vehicle the Redskins (in particular) used is nothing new. What WAS new was the fact that in the year in which it was used there was officially no salary cap. There was absolutely an unofficial "cap" on what teams could and could not do in terms of spending in that "uncapped" year. And the NFLPA did not sign off on it ahead of time. So yes, its collusion._________________

As long as Dan Snyder owns the team, the Redskins will not win another Super Bowl

Would it still be collusion since the punishment was handed out after? They allowed them to do it but said under new contract they will be punished.

It was still collusion. But the only way to get the punishment on the new contract was to get the NFLPA to sign off on it. Had the NFLPA not agree to sign off on the punishment, the Cowboys and Redskins would not have lost cap space and the suit that we're talking about that the NFLPA has brought would most probably be successful.

But since in the pursuit of getting the short term cap increase, the NFLPA signed away all rights to sue for any illegal activities by the owners, this lawsuit is going nowhere.

But who are they trying to defraud? Wouldn't collusion come down to which if the warning takes president over the agreement to the contracts.

Were the players in the room when the owners agreed to this "unwritten rule"? If not then the players were defrauded. In this NFL, since there is collective bargaining and there is a union, the owners cannot agree to have rules about cap/contracts/etc... without the players signing off first.

How does it effect players though. They didn't get punished.

If the owners colluded to not spend over a certain amount that effectively meant that players negotiating contracts / free agents could have possibly gotten more money. So it absolutely impacts them.

This lawsuit isn't about any of the teams Punished, but entirely about the NFLPA gearing up ammo for 2020 and the next collective bargaining deal.

Yup...and I hope the owners roll them over and over in 2020. Screw 'em._________________

As long as Dan Snyder owns the team, the Redskins will not win another Super Bowl

Would it still be collusion since the punishment was handed out after? They allowed them to do it but said under new contract they will be punished.

It was still collusion. But the only way to get the punishment on the new contract was to get the NFLPA to sign off on it. Had the NFLPA not agree to sign off on the punishment, the Cowboys and Redskins would not have lost cap space and the suit that we're talking about that the NFLPA has brought would most probably be successful.

But since in the pursuit of getting the short term cap increase, the NFLPA signed away all rights to sue for any illegal activities by the owners, this lawsuit is going nowhere.

But who are they trying to defraud? Wouldn't collusion come down to which if the warning takes president over the agreement to the contracts.

Were the players in the room when the owners agreed to this "unwritten rule"? If not then the players were defrauded. In this NFL, since there is collective bargaining and there is a union, the owners cannot agree to have rules about cap/contracts/etc... without the players signing off first.

How does it effect players though. They didn't get punished.

If the owners colluded to not spend over a certain amount that effectively meant that players negotiating contracts / free agents could have possibly gotten more money. So it absolutely impacts them.

This lawsuit isn't about any of the teams Punished, but entirely about the NFLPA gearing up ammo for 2020 and the next collective bargaining deal.

Here's the thing, the punishment dealt solely with moving money from other seasons, not spending some huge amount of cash on mega one year deals within the uncapped year.

This is done all the time. In fact, the contract vehicle the Redskins (in particular) used is nothing new. What WAS new was the fact that in the year in which it was used there was officially no salary cap. There was absolutely an unofficial "cap" on what teams could and could not do in terms of spending in that "uncapped" year. And the NFLPA did not sign off on it ahead of time. So yes, its collusion.

You seem to be acting purposely dense on this front... They took money from a year in which there would be a salary cap and moved it into a year without a cap. They are not being punished for what they did to an uncapped year, they are being punished for what they did to a capped year. really, the punishment was bringing them to where they should have been with a bit more damage to be punitive.

Would it still be collusion since the punishment was handed out after? They allowed them to do it but said under new contract they will be punished.

It was still collusion. But the only way to get the punishment on the new contract was to get the NFLPA to sign off on it. Had the NFLPA not agree to sign off on the punishment, the Cowboys and Redskins would not have lost cap space and the suit that we're talking about that the NFLPA has brought would most probably be successful.

But since in the pursuit of getting the short term cap increase, the NFLPA signed away all rights to sue for any illegal activities by the owners, this lawsuit is going nowhere.

But who are they trying to defraud? Wouldn't collusion come down to which if the warning takes president over the agreement to the contracts.

Were the players in the room when the owners agreed to this "unwritten rule"? If not then the players were defrauded. In this NFL, since there is collective bargaining and there is a union, the owners cannot agree to have rules about cap/contracts/etc... without the players signing off first.

How does it effect players though. They didn't get punished.

If the owners colluded to not spend over a certain amount that effectively meant that players negotiating contracts / free agents could have possibly gotten more money. So it absolutely impacts them.

This lawsuit isn't about any of the teams Punished, but entirely about the NFLPA gearing up ammo for 2020 and the next collective bargaining deal.

Here's the thing, the punishment dealt solely with moving money from other seasons, not spending some huge amount of cash on mega one year deals within the uncapped year.

This is done all the time. In fact, the contract vehicle the Redskins (in particular) used is nothing new. What WAS new was the fact that in the year in which it was used there was officially no salary cap. There was absolutely an unofficial "cap" on what teams could and could not do in terms of spending in that "uncapped" year. And the NFLPA did not sign off on it ahead of time. So yes, its collusion.

You seem to be acting purposely dense on this front... They took money from a year in which there would be a salary cap and moved it into a year without a cap. They are not being punished for what they did to an uncapped year, they are being punished for what they did to a capped year. really, the punishment was bringing them to where they should have been with a bit more damage to be punitive.

I'm not being dense on this front at all. In fact, I understand quite clearly what happened.

Take Haynesworth for example. The Redskins had a $21M option bonus that they converted to a signing bonus. This is done all the time. Teams do this to take money from a year in the future to the present year where they have cap space. Now, usually teams tend to spread out the signing bonus over a period of years but some teams do it in one year or two if they have salary space to accommodate the cap hit. The Redskins did nothing new here. It just so happened that the year they used to absorbed the "cap hit" was a year in which there was...no...cap. Every team had the same cap space (unlimited) and every team could perform the same maneuver that the Redskins and Cowboys performed. Therefore, as long as Snyder could pony up the cash, he could perform this maneuver.

"But wait"...you'll say "that was an uncapped year though".

Here we agree again (the first agreement was on what the Redskins did = move future cap hit to current year). But let's take a closer look at that uncapped year. First we ask ourselves:

Question: "Why was there an uncapped year?"

Answer: Because it was agreed to in the previous CBA. It was something the players pushed and the owners agreed to it in exchange for other concessions from the NFLPA in that previous CBA. The plan was for a year of NFL whereby the owners could spend as much or as little as they wanted to on salaries. This year was to kick in if there was no new CBA in place.

So this begs the question:

Question: "Why would the NFLPA push for an uncapped year?"

Answer: Because they wanted the owners to be scared of free spending owners like Snyder, Jones and a few others having not limits on how much they can spend. This was intended to force the owners back to the bargaining table so the new CBA could be hammered out. The uncapped year was intended to be a year in which teams could spend freely as they wished.

So then we ask:

Question: "Why would the owners agree to it?"

Answer: Because it was a way to agree to give up something in exchange for concessions in the previous CBA. Little did the NFLPA know but the owners never had any intention on letting that uncapped year be a year in which owners could freely spend.

Some helpful person will then chime in and say:

"But the league warned the teams not to do it"

Here we agree again. The league warned teams not to circumvent future salary caps by dumping contracts in the uncapped year. However, functionally this is no different than the Jaguars having $20M in cap space in this year and performing the same maneuver the Redskins did and dumping $15M from a future year into this one. Its the same maneuver and can be accomplished as long as one keeps under the salary cap.

"Aha!! I caught you Thai...there was no salary cap"

There wasn't...and then there really was. The CBA established that there would be no limit contractually to the amount that teams could spend. The actual "salary cap" therefore was the limitation on the ability of the owner to pony up the cash or the willingness by the owner to do so. Those with deep pockets like Snyder had the ability and willingness. Others may have had the ability but no willingness. Either way, the actual "cap" on what the owners could spend on salary was...according to the previous CBA supposed to be unlimited (contractually speaking).

Therefore the Redskins were using 2010 exactly as it was intended to be used and exactly as it was agreed to when the previous CBA was signed by the owners and players.
"But the league warned teams not to do it and they can impose the punishment if they want to"

Here we agree again. However, did the league involve the NFLPA in those meetings, the "inside agreements" and the "warnings" ahead of the "uncapped" 2010 year? Nope. Why didn't they? They were duty bound to share with the NFLPA as to how they were going to approach a year in which the owners were expected to be able to spend freely. They were duty bound to do this BEFORE 2010. In fact, they didn't reveal to the NFLPA what had happened until afterwards. And they revealed it precisely at the moment when the NFLPA needed the salary cap go up instead of flat in the ink-is-not-yet-dry CBA.

The owners told the players this because they needed them to sign off on the punishment. You see, in a CBA the owners AND the players have to agree on lots of things. How to treat uncapped years is one (since it was placed into the previous CBA). Another is exacting the type of punishment that was delivered onto the Redskins/Cowboys. The owners could not have enacted the punishment unless they got the NFLPA to agree and sign off on it. So the owners agreed to a slight raise in the salary cap for two years in exchange for the NFLPA agreeing to the punishment (but also giving up any rights to sue).

The NFLPA did this because they anticipated that teams would spend up to the new cap. But IIRC, "a funny thing happened on the way to the forum" = teams didn't just take the new cap space that was passed around and spend it. So the NFLPA got triple screwed (part of it their own doing). One = they got screwed out of a true uncapped year that they were expecting ... Two = they didn't see a realization of increased spending relative to the cap for those two years...Three= they cannot sue the NFL for collusion (this was their own doing).

This is why, while I agree there's nothing the Redskins and Cowboys can do short of nuking the whole league (which they won't do), the NFLPA could've done something had they not agreed to the punishment. Had they not signed off on the punishment, they would have a case. As a result they don't. So I'm in the camp of people who want to see the NFLPA screwed over in 2020 and each time the CBA needs to get renewed thereafter._________________

As long as Dan Snyder owns the team, the Redskins will not win another Super Bowl

Honestly, what's the best that can happen from a Redskins/Cowboys standpoint? Neither team is going to be given cap space from prior years. I truly don't understand. Let it go, guys. Nothing (in a rational world) will change a thing._________________RIP SuperSkinFan

Would it still be collusion since the punishment was handed out after? They allowed them to do it but said under new contract they will be punished.

It was still collusion. But the only way to get the punishment on the new contract was to get the NFLPA to sign off on it. Had the NFLPA not agree to sign off on the punishment, the Cowboys and Redskins would not have lost cap space and the suit that we're talking about that the NFLPA has brought would most probably be successful.

But since in the pursuit of getting the short term cap increase, the NFLPA signed away all rights to sue for any illegal activities by the owners, this lawsuit is going nowhere.

But who are they trying to defraud? Wouldn't collusion come down to which if the warning takes president over the agreement to the contracts.

Were the players in the room when the owners agreed to this "unwritten rule"? If not then the players were defrauded. In this NFL, since there is collective bargaining and there is a union, the owners cannot agree to have rules about cap/contracts/etc... without the players signing off first.

How does it effect players though. They didn't get punished.

If the owners colluded to not spend over a certain amount that effectively meant that players negotiating contracts / free agents could have possibly gotten more money. So it absolutely impacts them.

This lawsuit isn't about any of the teams Punished, but entirely about the NFLPA gearing up ammo for 2020 and the next collective bargaining deal.

Here's the thing, the punishment dealt solely with moving money from other seasons, not spending some huge amount of cash on mega one year deals within the uncapped year.

This is done all the time. In fact, the contract vehicle the Redskins (in particular) used is nothing new. What WAS new was the fact that in the year in which it was used there was officially no salary cap. There was absolutely an unofficial "cap" on what teams could and could not do in terms of spending in that "uncapped" year. And the NFLPA did not sign off on it ahead of time. So yes, its collusion.

You seem to be acting purposely dense on this front... They took money from a year in which there would be a salary cap and moved it into a year without a cap. They are not being punished for what they did to an uncapped year, they are being punished for what they did to a capped year. really, the punishment was bringing them to where they should have been with a bit more damage to be punitive.

I'm not being dense on this front at all. In fact, I understand quite clearly what happened.

Take Haynesworth for example. The Redskins had a $21M option bonus that they converted to a signing bonus. This is done all the time. Teams do this to take money from a year in the future to the present year where they have cap space. Now, usually teams tend to spread out the signing bonus over a period of years but some teams do it in one year or two if they have salary space to accommodate the cap hit. The Redskins did nothing new here. It just so happened that the year they used to absorbed the "cap hit" was a year in which there was...no...cap. Every team had the same cap space (unlimited) and every team could perform the same maneuver that the Redskins and Cowboys performed. Therefore, as long as Snyder could pony up the cash, he could perform this maneuver.

"But wait"...you'll say "that was an uncapped year though".

Here we agree again (the first agreement was on what the Redskins did = move future cap hit to current year). But let's take a closer look at that uncapped year. First we ask ourselves:

Question: "Why was there an uncapped year?"

Answer: Because it was agreed to in the previous CBA. It was something the players pushed and the owners agreed to it in exchange for other concessions from the NFLPA in that previous CBA. The plan was for a year of NFL whereby the owners could spend as much or as little as they wanted to on salaries. This year was to kick in if there was no new CBA in place.

So this begs the question:

Question: "Why would the NFLPA push for an uncapped year?"

Answer: Because they wanted the owners to be scared of free spending owners like Snyder, Jones and a few others having not limits on how much they can spend. This was intended to force the owners back to the bargaining table so the new CBA could be hammered out. The uncapped year was intended to be a year in which teams could spend freely as they wished.

So then we ask:

Question: "Why would the owners agree to it?"

Answer: Because it was a way to agree to give up something in exchange for concessions in the previous CBA. Little did the NFLPA know but the owners never had any intention on letting that uncapped year be a year in which owners could freely spend.

Some helpful person will then chime in and say:

"But the league warned the teams not to do it"

Here we agree again. The league warned teams not to circumvent future salary caps by dumping contracts in the uncapped year. However, functionally this is no different than the Jaguars having $20M in cap space in this year and performing the same maneuver the Redskins did and dumping $15M from a future year into this one. Its the same maneuver and can be accomplished as long as one keeps under the salary cap.

"Aha!! I caught you Thai...there was no salary cap"

There wasn't...and then there really was. The CBA established that there would be no limit contractually to the amount that teams could spend. The actual "salary cap" therefore was the limitation on the ability of the owner to pony up the cash or the willingness by the owner to do so. Those with deep pockets like Snyder had the ability and willingness. Others may have had the ability but no willingness. Either way, the actual "cap" on what the owners could spend on salary was...according to the previous CBA supposed to be unlimited (contractually speaking).

Therefore the Redskins were using 2010 exactly as it was intended to be used and exactly as it was agreed to when the previous CBA was signed by the owners and players.
"But the league warned teams not to do it and they can impose the punishment if they want to"

Here we agree again. However, did the league involve the NFLPA in those meetings, the "inside agreements" and the "warnings" ahead of the "uncapped" 2010 year? Nope. Why didn't they? They were duty bound to share with the NFLPA as to how they were going to approach a year in which the owners were expected to be able to spend freely. They were duty bound to do this BEFORE 2010. In fact, they didn't reveal to the NFLPA what had happened until afterwards. And they revealed it precisely at the moment when the NFLPA needed the salary cap go up instead of flat in the ink-is-not-yet-dry CBA.

The owners told the players this because they needed them to sign off on the punishment. You see, in a CBA the owners AND the players have to agree on lots of things. How to treat uncapped years is one (since it was placed into the previous CBA). Another is exacting the type of punishment that was delivered onto the Redskins/Cowboys. The owners could not have enacted the punishment unless they got the NFLPA to agree and sign off on it. So the owners agreed to a slight raise in the salary cap for two years in exchange for the NFLPA agreeing to the punishment (but also giving up any rights to sue).

The NFLPA did this because they anticipated that teams would spend up to the new cap. But IIRC, "a funny thing happened on the way to the forum" = teams didn't just take the new cap space that was passed around and spend it. So the NFLPA got triple screwed (part of it their own doing). One = they got screwed out of a true uncapped year that they were expecting ... Two = they didn't see a realization of increased spending relative to the cap for those two years...Three= they cannot sue the NFL for collusion (this was their own doing).

This is why, while I agree there's nothing the Redskins and Cowboys can do short of nuking the whole league (which they won't do), the NFLPA could've done something had they not agreed to the punishment. Had they not signed off on the punishment, they would have a case. As a result they don't. So I'm in the camp of people who want to see the NFLPA screwed over in 2020 and each time the CBA needs to get renewed thereafter.

Excellent excellent post Thai. Anyone that has any questions on what happened should read this and that should clear it up._________________